[TheRealVille]

No, it does not. They are not members of a constitutional minority. They do not have civil rights above and beyond everybody else simply because of their lifestyle choices. There is nothing unconstitutional in the government recognizing marriage between one man and one woman. If government chooses, through the enactment of laws, to recognize marriage as being only between members of the same sex, there would likewise, be no denial of constitutional rights to heterosexual couples. This is not a constitutional issue. It is a legislative issue. No civil right is at stake.

I don't think they want to go above and beyond everybody else. I'd say they just want the same privileges and benefits that other couples get. Of course, in your mind you are always right, and everybody else is unenlightened, so I don't expect you to comprehend any of this. As I've said before, I can't understand why you don't share your intellect with Washington? If everybody is so ignorant on constitution law up there, help them out a little, and set them straight. Why are you withholding all that knowledge from Washington, while you are right there in town?

[Hoot Gibson]

I don't think they want to go above and beyond everybody else. I'd say they just want the same privileges and benefits that other couples get. Of course, in your mind you are always right, and everybody else is unenlightened, so I don't expect you to comprehend any of this. As I've said before, I can't understand why you don't share your intellect with Washington? If everybody is so ignorant on constitution law up there, help them out a little, and set them straight. Why are you withholding all that knowledge from Washington, while you are right there in town?

The problem with your arguments, RV, is that you don't give me anything to comprehend. All you offer is your personal opinion. I layout a logical underpinning for my opinions and your response is not to rebut my arguments, but to repeat your personal opinions and attack me personally.

The problem for you is that I [B]do comprehend [/B]why you get so frustrated and ultimately resort to personal attacks when you debate. Even people who share your opinion on this subject must find your inability to defend their own position very disappointing.

[TheRealVille]

The problem with your arguments, RV, is that you don't give me anything to comprehend. All you offer is your personal opinion. I layout a logical underpinning for my opinions and your response is not to rebut my arguments, but to repeat your personal opinions and attack me personally.

The problem for you is that I [B]do comprehend [/B]why you get so frustrated and ultimately resort to personal attacks when you debate. Even people who share your opinion on this subject must find your inability to defend their own position very disappointing.

There is zero personal attack in the quoted post. You certainly do hold yourself high above anybody else's intellect in just about any subject that is discussed. You talk about how ignorant Washington, along with 99% of the posters here, is on political matters, yet you say I attack you when I point out that fact. I only stated the obvious, if you are such a highly intellectual person on political matters and constitutional law, you should find a way to help them out while you are there. The only opinion that I offer, is that gays just want the same benefits as other couples. BTW, as much as you'd like to think I'm frustrated, you would be wrong. I figured out long ago that you are out on the fringe.

[TheRealVille]

Just as anyone on BGR knows, you only talk on an equal basis with people that agree with you. Anybody else, using your own words, is an "idiot".

[Hoot Gibson]

Just as anyone on BGR knows, you only talk on an equal basis with people that agree with you. Anybody else, using your own words, is an "idiot".

Quite the contrary, I treat people with the same respect that they afford me. People who cannot debate without resorting to cursing at and threatening people deserve no respect and they will get none from me.

The fact that I have worked in Washington during the past couple of years is none of your concern. I had a low opinion of socialists when I lived in eastern Kentucky. The fact that I live in Washington for the time being does not make my opinions any more valid than yours - it is your inability to weave any supporting facts into a debate to support your opinions that weakens your positions.

[RunItUpTheGut]

No, that won't be my argument. My argument will be that how would you like to be forced to move somewhere you didn't want to because your neighbors didn't want you be there, for any reason. They shouldn't move anywhere, because they shouldn't have to leave the place they call home, for any reason. Like Stardust pointed out, it's just not the living together thing, there are many reasons connected with issue.

My point, i dont want them around me period.
There the minority.

[TheRealVille]

They always want to argue rights, well shouldnt it be the "right" of christians to keep gays from marrying since thats part of there religion.
Maybe gays could start there own religion.

You might have an argument there the US was a christian nation, ran by christian law. Since it isn't, christians don't have a right to anything, other than a right to practice their religion. They especially don't have a right to force their views on anybody else. When you come back with "gays don't have a right to force their lifestyle on everybody else", they aren't. They just want equal rights with everybody else.

You said above that you don't want them around you? Maybe you should move.

[vector]

If the chuch's want to get involved in politics make pay income tax's like

Everybody else

[Hoot Gibson]

I was referring to the "religious right" being the biggest fighters of it, yet they disregard the very science you speak of. You are blaming a everything on a generation of people that are failing math and science, yet you fall right in line with some of the people that completely disregard science.

Wrong (again), RV. This issue has nothing to do with science or religion. Gays and lesbians have no special constitutional right to redefine marriage as they see fit over the objections of the majority. My position is that this is a legislative issue and if states want to broaden the definition of marriage to include any two adults, then they currently have that right, IMO - but the US Constitution does not compel states to refashion their constitutions to accomodate the wishes of gay activists and their supporters.

If, after more than 200 years our Supreme Court suddenly decides that gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry, then it will do so as the result of presidents like Obama, who have no respect for the Constitution, packing the court with enough liberal justices of like mind who are willing to drag the rest of us kicking and screaming down the road to a totalitarian state. When you advocate that federal courts overturn more than 230 years of precedents, you are showing your disrespect for the rule of law.

When and if gay and lesbian marriage garners the overwhelming support of the American people, then the laws will be changed - either through state legislatures or by a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution. Until then, they should focus on earning support for their cause among voters instead of showing their disdain for our tradition of majority rule.

[SKINNYPIG]

Wrong (again), RV. This issue has nothing to do with science or religion. [COLOR="Red"]Gays and lesbians have no special constitutional right to redefine marriage as they see fit over the objections of the majority. My position is that this is a legislative issue and if states want to broaden the definition of marriage to include any two adults, then they currently have that right, IMO - but the US Constitution does not compel states to refashion their constitutions to accomodate the wishes of gay activists and their supporters.
[/COLOR]
If, after more than 200 years our Supreme Court suddenly decides that gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry, then it will do so as the result of presidents like Obama, who have no respect for the Constitution, packing the court with enough liberal justices of like mind who are willing to drag the rest of us kicking and screaming down the road to a totalitarian state. When you advocate that federal courts overturn more than 230 years of precedents, you are showing your disrespect for the rule of law.

When and if gay and lesbian marriage garners the overwhelming support of the American people, then the laws will be changed - either through state legislatures or by a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution. Until then, they should focus on earning support for their cause among voters instead of showing their disdain for our tradition of majority rule.

I really don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

[TheRealVille]

Wrong (again), RV. This issue has nothing to do with science or religion. Gays and lesbians have no special constitutional right to redefine marriage as they see fit over the objections of the majority. My position is that this is a legislative issue and if states want to broaden the definition of marriage to include any two adults, then they currently have that right, IMO - but the US Constitution does not compel states to refashion their constitutions to accomodate the wishes of gay activists and their supporters.

If, after more than 200 years our Supreme Court suddenly decides that gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry, then it will do so as the result of presidents like Obama, who have no respect for the Constitution, packing the court with enough liberal justices of like mind who are willing to drag the rest of us kicking and screaming down the road to a totalitarian state. When you advocate that federal courts overturn more than 230 years of precedents, you are showing your disrespect for the rule of law.

When and if gay and lesbian marriage garners the overwhelming support of the American people, then the laws will be changed - either through state legislatures or by a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution. Until then, they should focus on earning support for their cause among voters instead of showing their disdain for our tradition of majority rule.

Just pointing out that you say the liberals, because of the decline in math and science degrading in schools, breeds the thought that a minority of liberals are the enlightened ones on this issue. Yet the very people that discredit science at almost every level, christians, are somewhat the smarter of the two groups, on this issue. They are the main fighters of this, because their book says it's wrong.

Suddenly, as our public school system has deteriorated and the influence of our liberal-dominated media has grown, a very vocal minority of citizens in this country believe that their opinions on the subject should be made law, even over the objections of the majority, which has thousands of years of history on their side. Why? Because the same generation that ranks near the bottom of the charts among devloped countries in math and science ability believe that they are nonetheless more enlightened than all of the generations that preceeded them and that their beliefs are therefore more valid than all those who walked this earth before them.

[SKINNYPIG]

Is there any country or society where gay marriage has always been legal and accepted by all? Was it ever considered a natural thing anywhere or any time? Is "their book" responsible for making it unnatural? Just asking.

[Hoot Gibson]

Just pointing out that you say the liberals, because of the decline in math and science degrading in schools, breeds the thought that a minority of liberals are the enlightened ones on this issue. Yet the very people that discredit science at almost every level, christians, are somewhat the smarter of the two groups, on this issue. They are the main fighters of this, because their book says it's wrong.

I don't speak for everybody and I don't pretend to do so. To me, this is clearly a question of law not of religion. The Constitution has not changed in any way over the past 230+ years in a way that would give gays and lesbians a special protected class status that would entitle them to redefine marriage over the objections of the majority. You want to paint this as a fight between the so-called Christian right and civil libertarians and it is no such thing.

BTW, I also believe that those who use the Bible to justify the current secular definition of marriage are as wrong as you are on this issue. But just because a small minority of Christians cite the Bible as the only reason that the government should not redefine marriage to include any two adults, does not meant that the government should do so. I believe in a clear separation of church and state but I do not believe in the federal government enforcing freedom from religion policies.

Current law is on the side of those whose opinions you dismiss as the "Christian right," whether you or I agree with the reasons for their position or not. Today's judges are no smarter than the judges of past generations, who found no constitution right for gays and lesbians to marry. That precedent should not be thrown to the wind simply because liberals like you don't think that it is fair.

[TheRealThing]

Just pointing out that you say the liberals, because of the decline in math and science degrading in schools, breeds the thought that a minority of liberals are the enlightened ones on this issue. Yet the very people that discredit science at almost every level, christians, are somewhat the smarter of the two groups, on this issue. They are the main fighters of this, because their book says it's wrong.

First, you couldn't be more wrong to assume Christians "discredit" science at any level. Honestly RV, where do you come up with this stuff? Christians in fact, love science as much as anyone does. However, there is a very big problem in today's scientific community, as at different times in the scientific community of the past. The difference between a theory, such as "the origin of the species" and "global warming" or the "big bang" and, proven science such as nuclear science, thermo dynamics, mathmatics, etc. is as vast as the known universe.

The theories like the ones mentioned have yet to be proven. Until they are proven, they are nothing more than a guess. As in the case of a well written novel, a hypothesis can then be proffered as a method of investigation into the original theory, or plot. It's exactly like cave diving the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. There are a lot of blind alleys and sprawling cave systems to explore. Artifacts have been found while diving the caves. The only thing limiting possible origins of the artifacts is the imaginations of those involved with the diving expitdition.

Take people who don't want to believe in God for instance. These folks WANT the theory of evolutioin to be true. Hence, they are willing to overlook the fact that there isn't even ONE single transitory life form in the fossil record. A must have for the theory to hold water. Well, guess what? I'm not that gullible. Same thing with global warming, if they want me to run around like Al Gore yelling the sky is falling, let's see some proof. Not conclusive proof, ANY proof, free from undisputed reports of data tampering of course. Then there is the ultimate leap of faith required to buy into the big bang theory. In that scenario one must choose his God. Either God created the universe or a unimaginably big rock exploded aeons ago and viola, here we all are. Without getting into the specifics of why that is so absurd, it seems to me to be a much tougher proposition, to by faith to accept one's father as being a rock than to accept the Rock Of Ages as his Creator.

Christians love science! We have nothing to fear at all from true science because it always supports the existence of God. Now, theories? That's a different matter. Educated men can come up with literally volumes of supportive conjecture. Without proof, the whole thing is an endless cave diving expedition. Hardly better than your best guess at the race track, would you bet your life at the race track?

[RunItUpTheGut]

I don't speak for everybody and I don't pretend to do so. To me, this is clearly a question of law not of religion. The Constitution has not changed in any way over the past 230+ years in a way that would give gays and lesbians a special protected class status that would entitle them to redefine marriage over the objections of the majority. You want to paint this as a fight between the so-called Christian right and civil libertarians and it is no such thing.

BTW, I also believe that those who use the Bible to justify the current secular definition of marriage are as wrong as you are on this issue. But just because a small minority of Christians cite the Bible as the only reason that the government should not redefine marriage to include any two adults, does not meant that the government should do so. I believe in a clear separation of church and state but I do not believe in the federal government enforcing freedom from religion policies.

Current law is on the side of those whose opinions you dismiss as the "Christian right," whether you or I agree with the reasons for their position or not. Today's judges are no smarter than the judges of past generations, who found no constitution right for gays and lesbians to marry. That precedent should not be thrown to the wind simply because liberals like you don't think that it is fair.

Agree 100%.

Since when did people actually think there are entitled to change the constitution.

[vundy33]

So where do dinosaurs come into this "true science" that always supports the existence of God TRT?

[TheRealVille]

First, you couldn't be more wrong to assume Christians "discredit" science at any level. Honestly RV, where do you come up with this stuff? Christians in fact, love science as much as anyone does. However, there is a very big problem in today's scientific community, as at different times in the scientific community of the past. The difference between a theory, such as "the origin of the species" and "global warming" or the "big bang" and, proven science such as nuclear science, thermo dynamics, mathmatics, etc. is as vast as the known universe.

The theories like the ones mentioned have yet to be proven. Until they are proven, they are nothing more than a guess. As in the case of a well written novel, a hypothesis can then be proffered as a method of investigation into the original theory, or plot. It's exactly like cave diving the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. There are a lot of blind alleys and sprawling cave systems to explore. Artifacts have been found while diving the caves. The only thing limiting possible origins of the artifacts is the imaginations of those involved with the diving expitdition.

Take people who don't want to believe in God for instance. These folks WANT the theory of evolutioin to be true. Hence, they are willing to overlook the fact that there isn't even ONE single transitory life form in the fossil record. A must have for the theory to hold water. Well, guess what? I'm not that gullible. Same thing with global warming, if they want me to run around like Al Gore yelling the sky is falling, let's see some proof. Not conclusive proof, ANY proof, free from undisputed reports of data tampering of course. Then there is the ultimate leap of faith required to buy into the big bang theory. In that scenario one must choose his God. Either God created the universe or a unimaginably big rock exploded aeons ago and viola, here we all are. Without getting into the specifics of why that is so absurd, it seems to me to be a much tougher proposition, to by faith to accept one's father as being a rock than to accept the Rock Of Ages as his Creator.

Christians love science! We have nothing to fear at all from true science because it always supports the existence of God. Now, theories? That's a different matter. Educated men can come up with literally volumes of supportive conjecture. Without proof, the whole thing is an endless cave diving expedition. Hardly better than your best guess at the race track, would you bet your life at the race track?

Speaking of theories with no proof. :Thumbs:

[TheRealVille]

Agree 100%.

Since when did people actually think there are entitled to change the constitution.

Apparently somebody thought they could at least 27 times.

[judgementday]

So where do dinosaurs come into this "true science" that always supports the existence of God TRT?

Not that I fully believe what I am about to say because it is a theory told to me but I posed the same question once to a missionary at a church I use to attend who also studied creation, etc...and I thought I would share...

He explained that prior to the "big flood" the earth was a perfect atmosphere. Same temperatures, weather patterns, etc... because God had created a "perfect" place for his childern. Due to these conditions reptiles could grow and thrive which lead to dinosaurs. The population of the earth was small at that time so people and dinosaurs didn't interact much (if I can remember). However, once the big flood happened it shifted the earth, broke up the continents and caused the weather patterns that we have now. This in turn caused the instinction of dinosaurs. Now, I asked why didn't they take two of them on the ark, his response was that they did, turtles, alligators, crocodiles, etc... in a perfect atmosphere would grow to resemble dinosaurs but due to the change in the earth's climate from the flood, their life span is shorter and their bodies have had to adapt.

I know, hard to wrap your head around, but again it was just a theory that I wanted to share seeing that someone posed the question...

[TheRealVille]

Not that I fully believe what I am about to say because it is a theory told to me but I posed the same question once to a missionary at a church I use to attend who also studied creation, etc...and I thought I would share...

He explained that prior to the "big flood" the earth was a perfect atmosphere. Same temperatures, weather patterns, etc... because God had created a "perfect" place for his childern. Due to these conditions reptiles could grow and thrive which lead to dinosaurs. The population of the earth was small at that time so people and dinosaurs didn't interact much (if I can remember). However, once the big flood happened it shifted the earth, broke up the continents and caused the weather patterns that we have now. This in turn caused the instinction of dinosaurs. Now, I asked why didn't they take two of them on the ark, his response was that they did, turtles, alligators, crocodiles, etc... in a perfect atmosphere would grow to resemble dinosaurs but due to the change in the earth's climate from the flood, their life span is shorter and their bodies have had to adapt.

I know, hard to wrap your head around, but again it was just a theory that I wanted to share seeing that someone posed the question...

I have to confess, I just about pee'ed my pants when I read the missionaries description of things. :Thumbs: Is anybody now realizing why creation science isn't allowed to be taught in schools? You would have people like this missionary teaching it.

[OrangenowBlue]

Agree 100%.

Since when did people actually think there are entitled to change the constitution.

I don't know but conservatives have been trying to for years.

[TheRealThing]

So where do dinosaurs come into this "true science" that always supports the existence of God TRT?

True science ALWAYS verify's God's Word and vice versa. The following is what most Bible scholars agree to be a discription of Brontosaurus or Brachiosaurus.


Job 40:15-24 (KJV)
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.


The following is a discription of the most fearsome sea dwelling beast God made;

Job 41:1-34 (KJV)
1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear. 30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
33 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.
34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

Notice God has made a comment that should dispell any question as to whether there were millions of years of history between the existence of Leviathan and man as He said arrows, darts and spears are of no threat to him. Also in the text above, God says He made Behemoth along with Job.

Sorry for the length of the text but it was neccessary to show you enough scripture to remove any doubt about where dinosaurs come into true science. No credible Christian scholar would ever deny the existence of the dinosaur in the fossil record or in God's creation. Matter of fact, I saw pictures once of fossilized footprints an upright walking dinosaur like a T-Rex or something similar on what was at one time a mud flat since turned to stone, with the footprints of a man coming through sometime later and actually stepping into the dino track. Thus you had several dino tracks with a man's track on top of them.

[TheRealThing]

Here is a link for dinosaur and human footprintshttps://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/55https://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/55https://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/55https://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/55https://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/55

[TheRealThing]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...rkmenistan

[TheRealThing]

http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/footprints.htm

[TheRealThing]

Speaking of theories with no proof. :Thumbs:

Did you just agree with me or was this supposed to be a rebuff? The theories you highlighted are the ones I said hadn't any proof. Must be the Pee Wee Herman defense, I know you are but what am I?

[RunItUpTheGut]

Apparently somebody thought they could at least 27 times.

Thats how many gays tried to get married yesterday.
There was one group of 3 thats why you get the odd number.

[TheRealVille]

Did you just agree with me or was this supposed to be a rebuff? The theories you highlighted are the ones I said hadn't any proof. Must be the Pee Wee Herman defense, I know you are but what am I?

No, I meant the christian theory of God. You said you weren't gullible, I was just pointing to an unproved theory that you believe in.

[TheRealVille]

Here is a link for dinosaur and human footprintshttps://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/55https://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/55https://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/55https://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/55https://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/55

Are you saying man has been on earth for 65 million years? That's when the last dinosaurs went extinct.


Here's a link for you, though.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/mantrack.html

[vundy33]

I believe in God, but the whole dinosaur thing kind of throws a stick into the Christian argument.

I really, really hope we get those answers and find life on another planet before I die, lol. Really want to see what people of religion come up with to make themselves feel safe.